Where I live, based on some pretty outlandish ideas posted by John. WHY would you even consider setting a minimum price for a firearm? Do you watch the news around here? In any news coverage where they showed the weapons involved in a crime, I have yet to see a Hi Point shown as the bad guy's gun of choice. And you think making a minimum price point for firearms will convince the anti-gun crowd to consider that a compromise that would convince them to go along with removing the restrictions of the 1934 or 1968 gun laws?

The anti-gun crowd sees a compromise as a situation in which gun owners give up some more rights willingly, and the anti-gun side simply takes more control of the issue. Their aim is to remove guns from society, not allow easier access to full auto weapons.

If criminals really wanted full auto weapons, they could as easily buy military surplus re-created guns like an AK or an SKS, and work them over a little to set them to full auto. That would be a lot easier than smuggling in surplus guns already made that way.

Now I don't know what they're teaching you over there at Columbus, but to this Buckeye, it makes no sense to try and force an Ohio company from business on a notion that isn't going to achieve the goals you think it will.

One question: Have you ever shot a Hi Point? I own one as does my son, and I know of many people who own them that certainly aren't criminals, they had a need for a firearm at a time of limited cash flow, and that was the only option available. And the vast majority of those who own them that I know feel they're pretty good guns. If you haven't shot one, let me know, maybe we can set it up for you to try one out, since we both live in the Gem City.